Rakesh Singh vs State of Chhattisgarh and Others

Nagar Panchayat, Balrampur/respondent No. 3 published a notice inviting tenders on 18.3.2011 (Annexure-P/2). Tenders were invited for giving on contract paryavaran avam niryat karnake, Balrampur for collection of taxes for a period of one year commencing from 01.4.2011 to 31.03.2012. It was directed and disclosed that the closed envelops containing bids should reach to the office of respondent No. 3 on or before 25.03.2011 till 4.00 pm. and the envelops would be opened on the same day at 5.00 p.m. The petitioner was one of the aspirant and when he visited the office of respondent No. 3 on 24.03.2011, it was informed that the tender process is going to be cancelled, therefore, he did not send his closed envelop as per NIT dated 18.01.2011. Later on, by a notification dated 25.03.2011, issued by the Chief Municipal Officer, Nagar Panchayat, Balrampur (Annexure-P/ 3), it was informed that the subject tender process which was to be finalized on 25.3.2011 has been stayed on account of some reason. Copy of the notification has been filed as (Annexure-P/3). The said notification reads as under:-

Thereafter, on 25.3.2011, closed envelops of five tenderers including respondent No. 4 were opened and it was decided that contract shall be awarded to respondent No. 4, because, respondent No. 4 offered highest bid of Rs. 8,75,000/-.

Mr. Bhupendra Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the above action on the part of respondent No. 3 is arbitrary and mala fide. Even after notifying that the tender process has been stayed, closed envelopes were opened on 25.3.2011, and work was illegally awarded to respondent No. 4. He also argued that note sheets of Respondent No. 3 would show that no reasons have been assigned to supercede the notification dated 25.3.2011 and the envelops were opened as if no such notification was issued by respondent No. 3.; He furnished copies of applications filed by the aspirant tenderers, which show that all the applications were dispatched through post office on 25.3.2011 and were received by the office of respondent No. 3 on 25.3.2011, which according to him appears to be managed and unreasonable, because, the dak sent through speed post would hardly reach even to a local place on the same date. His submission is that even the hand writing of the applications are same which shows that respondents 3 & 4 joined their hands in glove and the impugned work was illegally awarded in favour of respondent No. 4.

On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondents 3 & 4 opposed these arguments. However, they could not dispute the fact that notification dated 25.3.2011 was issued by respondent No. 3 and without passing any order for further processing, five closed envelops received by respondent No. 3 were opened and the contract was awarded in favour of respondent No. 4. They have also not disputed that almost all the five persons, including respondent No. 4 sent their closed envelops on 25.3.2011 which were received in the office of respondent No. 3 on the same day. Further they argued that since the petitioner was not a tenderer, therefore, he has no right to file this writ petition challenging the tender process.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and also perused the records of the writ petition.

The petitioner has taken the plea that when he went to the office of respondent No. 3 for enquiring about the tender, the authorities of respondent No. 3 verbally told that the subject tender is going to be stayed/cancelled, therefore, he did not send his bid on the said information. This fact was formally denied by respondent No. 3. There is evasive denial by respondent No. 3 vide their reply, as they have contended that the petitioner has not shown any document to substantiate this fact. When the petitioner has pleaded that it was the oral intimation that the tender process is going to be cancelled/stayed, there is no question of production of any such document.

On perusal of the order sheets of the office of respondent No. 3 as also the notification dated 25.3.2011, it would be clear that respondent No. 3/ Nagar Panchayat, on 25.3.2011 firstly notified that the entire tender process has been stayed on account of some reason and thereafter on the same day, five envelops, allegedly received by respondent No. 3 on 25.3.2011 were opened and contract was awarded in favour of respondent No. 4. Respondent No. 3 has not denied the issuance of notification dated 25.3.2011. If it was notified on 25.3.2011 that tender process has been stayed without passing any further order in this regard, respondent No. 3 would not have proceeded to open the bids on the same day and award the contract to respondent No. 4 in a hurried manner. The above action of respondent No. 3 appears to be arbitrary and malafide and opening of the closed envelops (bids) after issuance of notification dated 25.3.2011 is without any further order passed by respondent No. 3 in this regard.

We note that all the envelops were received on 25.3.2011 itself. Even the applications contained in the envelops were, also written on 25.3.2011. The above envelops were said be sent by speed post on 25.3.2011, which allegedly reached to the office of respondent No. 3 on the same day. This does not appear to be reasonable on the face of it. In normal circumstances even by the speed post, the letters are not being delivered on the same day. All these create a doubt on the transparency of tender process adopted by respondent No. 3.

Besides the above, we further gather from the note sheets of respondent No. 3 that in the year 2009-10, collection on the subject barrier was Rs. 8,65,000/ -; in the year 2010-11 the collection was Rs. 12,50,000/-, therefore, principally, a decision was taken that this year the official rate should be fixed at Rs. 13 lakhs for awarding the contract. However, the contract was awarded in favour of respondent No. 4 for Rs. 8,75,000/- only.

For the foregoing reasons, we are unable to sustain the decision of respondent No. 3 to award the subject contract to respondent No. 4. The same deserves to be set aside. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 30.3.2011 (Annexure-P/1) awarding the subject contract to respondent No. 4 is quashed. However, respondent No. 3 would be free to call fresh tenders for awarding the said contract and take decision in accordance with law.